TNIV or NRSV
Chris Heard at Higgaion has a good post on some difficulties he has found in the TNIV Old Testament. Although I have presented myself as a proponent of the TNIV, what actually motivates me is removing the statement of concern against the TNIV in order to clear the air and create dialogue around what a good translation really would be.
Here are Chris Heard's comments,
I remember last spring feeling discouraged when I realized that some translations have considerable problem issues but all translations have some problem issues.
Here are Chris Heard's comments,
- You know what I really want? A translation that has the readability of the TNIV without the theological baggage that distorts the text—but not one that does as far as, say, the CEV in simplifying its vocabulary. Does anyone know of such a translation? Does it exist? Have I just missed it? Or is it time for a new translation project (maybe without the word “Standard” in the name—you don’t actually become a “standard” by claiming to be such)?
I remember last spring feeling discouraged when I realized that some translations have considerable problem issues but all translations have some problem issues.
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 9:57 PM
7 Comments:
While there is some justification for Chris Heard's comments about TNIV, I'm afraid to say that I find it hard to take them seriously because of the really shoddy work he has done on Isaiah 7:14, where he has completely mis-parsed two key words. See my comment there. I note that he is a professor of religion, not of Hebrew. This leaves me lacking any confidence that his comments on Jeremiah 7:22-23 can be relied on; it seems to me that a good case can be made for the TNIV rendering as a plausible alternative exegesis to the one he prefers.
I still think the best OT translation of the Meaning-based philosophy is God's Word (GW).
He picked up all of his toys, deleted all of his posts, and went elsewhere...
He's still out there if you know where to look, though.
GD, I'm not sure which problems you are referring to. But TNIV has not replicated all of the reported problems in NIV OT, but has corrected a number of them, such as the capital S in "Son" in Psalm 2.
Who brought up the issues which Metzger brought out? Was it Anonymous/Ishmael, or someone else? Do you have any online link to a list or summary of these issues?
I'm late coming to this discussion but I'd like to add my 2 cents worth on "accuracy." It is worthwhile to clarify what kind of accuracy we are shooting for. If it means that we wish to accurately transfer the lexical information found in the original then an accurate translation will look much different than if we are trying to accurately transmit the original message. But this is a bit of a tired argument isn't it? I suppose a seminary prof is going to have a different view of accuracy than the average parishoner. To quote Luther: Rather we must inquire about this of the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly.
In Matthew 5:2, NIV and TNIV reflect καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἐδίδασκεν with "he began to teach"; specifically "began" reflects what is literally "opened his mouth".
In Matthew 13:32, TNIV has dropped the "your" in NIV which Metzger criticised.
In 1 Peter 4:6, TNIV has translated not the form but the meaning which the CBT exegetes obviously found in this passage. English "dead" implies that they were dead at the time, but Greek νεκροι may not do.
1 Corinthians 4:9 TNIV is an interesting example of implicit information being made explicit to clarify a culturally relevant practice. Metzger may not approve of this as a translation principle, but the CBT clearly does. Without this information readers are likely to fail to understand what is happening here. I know some argue that it would be better put in a footnote. I'm not sure whether I agree in this case.
I think the experts are likely to know better than you, or any other ordinary reader, whether in this case "dead" could refer to those already dead. The experts on the CBT seem to have decided it could not. Possibly other experts could challenge their understanding, and I might include Metzger among those experts, but probably not you or me.
If experts have decided that a superficially ambiguous text in fact must mean A and not B, it would be highly irresponsible of them to translate it as ambiguous between A and B so that amateurs can misinterpret it as meaning B and thus mislead themselves and their churches.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home